From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 28 14:57:21 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9SIvKa23827; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:57:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410281857.i9SIvKa23827@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #518 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:55:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 518 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cable Companies See Surge in Net Business (Monty Solomon) Effector 17.40 EFF, VVF at E-Voting Ground Zero November 2 (M Solomon) Re: FCC Okays Cingular, AT*T Merger (kansasman) Clicking in Phone Line From Electric Fence (Matt) Voice Over Internet Revolution Will Be Big but Quiet (Lisa Minter) Is There a PBX Like This? Urgent!!! (Vish) Linux Asterisk Embedded PBX, Help!! (Vish) Re: What Happened to Channel 1? (Neal McLain) Re: VOIP and Telnet (Rick Merrill) Re: VOIP and Telnet (kansasman) Re: Inexepnsive Remote Forwarding by Auto Attendant (Vish) Re: Home Phones Face Uncertain Future (kansasman) Re: Yet Another Telco Tax Proposed (David) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:20:28 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cable Companies See Surge in Net Business By MICHAEL RUBINKAM Associated Press Writer PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- The cable industry's foray into high-speed Internet service continues to pay off, with Comcast Corp. and Cox Communications Inc. both reporting hundreds of thousands of new broadband subscribers _ and double-digit revenue increases. The gains buoyed investors, who sent the shares higher despite profits that fell short of expectations. Comcast, the nation's biggest cable television company, said Wednesday it added a record number of new high-speed Internet subscribers in the third quarter, helping boost revenue by 12.1 percent. The company now has 6.5 million broadband subscribers. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=44550770 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:01:15 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.40: EFF, VVF at E-voting Ground Zero, Nov. 2 EFFector Vol. 17, No. 40 October 27, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 311th Issue of EFFector: * EFF and Verified Voting at E-voting Ground Zero, November 2 * Look Before You Vote - Proof Your Ballot! * EFF Launches "Paper or Plastic 2004" Campaign * Sixth Circuit Court Protects the Right to Reverse Engineer * EFF Challenges Secret Court Order: Motion Demands Information About the Seizure of Indymedia's Servers * MiniLinks (15): John Kerry - DMCA Reformer? * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/40.php ------------------------------ From: dog4dogg@yahoo.com (kansasman) Subject: Re: FCC OKs Cingular, AT&T Wireless Merger Date: 28 Oct 2004 09:48:22 -0700 Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > By BRUCE MEYERSON AP Business Writer > NEW YORK (AP) -- Now that the purchase of AT&T Wireless is complete, > Cingular Wireless' new status as the nation's biggest cell phone > provider may prove fleeting if the merged company doesn't move > quickly. > The $41 billion deal, finalized Tuesday with Federal Communications > Commission clearance, pairs two companies whose customer service > rankings and operating performance are among the weakest in the > industy. > As Cingular's management takes on the sizable distraction of merging > two large corporations, it may prove especially difficult to attack > those issues with any speed. > One top concern has been the pace at which subscribers have been > switching to rivals, especially at AT&T Wireless Services Inc., > though Cingular's performance in this area has been unimpressive as > well. > Those defections have been fueled in large part by a successful > marketing campaign at Verizon Wireless, which has built a strong > perception as the company with the country's most expansive cell phone > network. > The new Cingular hopes the added network coverage and capacity from > AT&T Wireless will help counter that perception almost from the start. > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=44523186 Great to know. I have been wondering when this merger would take place ... this bit of information is interesting to note too: "One top concern has been the pace at which subscribers have been switching to rivals, especially at AT&T Wireless Services Inc., though Cingular's performance in this area has been unimpressive as well." ------------------------------ From: Matt Subject: Clicking in Phone Line From Electric Fence Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:14:34 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Hi, Got a weird problem that I'm looking for a possible resolution to. There is a fairly large farm with about a mile of electric fence around the cattle area, with a pulsing electric fence. Apparently this is a heavy duty pulser and is able to power 100 miles of fence. Now ... about 500 feet - 1000 feet from the field where the electric fence is a youth camp. On the camp is the office telephones, caretaker, and a program director. The phone line for the caretaker and ONE of the two office lines experience a continual hum as well as a click, click, click, click, click, every time the electric fence fires off. The program director does not experience any known issue on his line, and the other line in the office is fine. I find this very odd, since both of the office lines come in (presumably) on the same cable? Any thoughts? Verizon is kinda stumped on this issue, so I'm trying to see if I can figure anything out to help them out. Does this sound like a grounding issue? If so is it at the demarc box? Or on a line some place? Why only one phone line and not the other? As another side note, the electric fence runs about 500 - 600 feet beside the road, which is also where the telephone/electric poles run (same side of the road). ~ Matt ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:16:52 -0400 Subject: Voice Over Internet Revolution Will Be Big but Quiet http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pulver26oct26,0,3831005.story?coll=la-home-business Q&A Voice Over Internet Revolution Will Be Big but Quiet, Prominent Booster Says By James S. Granelli, Times Staff Writer Telecommunications is a witches' brew of acronyms like TDM, FTTH, ISDN, PSTN, POTS and CDMA. Another one is quickly catching on 'VOIP', for voice over Internet protocol, a technology that breaks up a voice call into data packets and sends it, like e-mail, along a high-speed connection. Jeff Pulver has been promoting VOIP for more than a decade, longer than most of the companies offering VOIP service have existed. Through his frequent Voice on the Net conferences, he has brought together VOIP engineers, entrepreneurs, analysts, consultants, venture capitalists, vendors, providers and, most important, regulators. Full story at: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pulver26oct26,0,3831005.story?coll=la-home-business ------------------------------ From: visniranjan@hotmail.com (Vish) Subject: Is There a PBX Like This? Urgent!!! Date: 28 Oct 2004 07:49:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi folks, I have two incoming lines that need to be transferred to one of several remote numbers depending on extension or names directory (for a virtual office). Is there a SOHO PBX with the following specs? 1. Can be configured locally like a hub or switch is configured ie. by launching a browser. For my Belkin ethernet hub I enter 192.168.2.1 on my browser and it helps me configure my hub. Any PBX that can be configured similarly? 2. Can be configured remotely (via VPN) over the internet 3. PBX should not need a dedicated PC ie. should work independent of a PC (except for inital configuration). Thanks in anticipation, Vish ------------------------------ From: visniranjan@hotmail.com (Vish) Subject: Linux Asterisk embedded PBX, HELP!! Date: 28 Oct 2004 07:58:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi again folks, Is there a PBX which is Linux/Asterisk based that can work independent of a PC? A PBX with embedded Linux OS and Asterisk that can be configured locally initialy with a PC, (later works independent of the PC). The device must also be subsequently configurable remotely via the internet (VPN if required). Maybe I am just dreaming but am new to this. Any help appreciated. Thanks, Vish ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:09:57 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: What Happened to Channel 1? DevilsPGD wrote: > Shaw cable is (or was, I don't have my TV connected to my > DCT right now) using channel 1 as a digital channel for > themselves. Analog cable still starts at 2 though. Whereupon Doug Krause wrote: > Comcast in Western Massachusetts uses channel 1 for On Demand. "On Demand" is distributed digitally; as DevilsPGD noted, channel 1 can be used for digital services. However, digital "channel" numbers are arbitrary labels for specific data streams; they bear no relationship to any actual RF channel. Based on the "channel" number, a digital converter refers to an internal lookup table. Based on the information obtained from the table, the converter determines if the signal is authorized; if so, it tunes to the correct RF carrier, demodulates it, demuxes it, decodes the desired signal, and outputs video and audio. Most converters include a modulator to provide an NTSC output, typically switchable to Channel 3 or 4. Most converters also display the digital "channel" number; some display additional information such as time and date and/or program metadata. Lookup tables can be downloaded from the cable TV company headend to accommodate changes in authorized service levels or to totally de-authorize a non-pay subscriber. > About 10 or 15 years ago my grandmother's cable in Arlington, > Texas had Channels 1, 0, and 00. Settop converters of that vintage were analog. Analog cable TV channel numbers were not standardized until 1992, when the FCC adopted EIA Interim Standard IS-132 [47 CFR 76.605(a)(ii)]. See . Long before 1992, most analog cable-TV channel numbers had been fairly well standardized by common industry practice. Two numbering systems were in common use: Letter designations: A, B, C, etc. Channel A = 120-126 MHz. Number designations: 14,15,16, etc. Channel 14 = 120-126 MHz. But three channel numbers had remained unstandardized, so various converter manufactures invented their own numbering schemes: FREQUENCY EIA LETTER OTHER CHANNEL NUMBERS BAND CHANNEL CHANNEL SOMETIMES USED BY (MHz) NUMBER NUMBER CONVERTER MANUFACTURERS NOTES --------- ------- ------- ------------------------ ----- 72-78 1 A-8, 0, 1 1,2 108-114 98 A-2, 0, 1, 00, 01, 54, 57, 60 1,3 114-120 99 A-1, 0, 1, 00, 01, 55, 58, 61 1,3 Note 1: "A-8" is read "A minus 8," meaning eight channels below channel A. Similarly, "A-1" is one channel below channel A, etc. Note 2: The IRC and HRC frequency plans expand the 72-76 MHz band to 6 MHz, enough to carry one NTSC television channel, designated by EIA as Channel 1. See . Note 3: The 108-120 MHz is used in the airspace for VOR (VHF Omnidirectional Range). To avoid a possible conflict, this band was skipped when the original lettered-channel assignments were made (sometime around 1960). As technology improved (and FCC rules changed), this band became usable for two TV channels, which somehow got named A-2 and A-1. For obvious reasons, converter manufacturers didn't want to use such klunky channel numbers, so they invented their own numbers. The EIA standard finally put an end to this nonsense by naming them 98 and 99. Your grandmother's Channels 1, 0, and 00 were probably some combination of what are now EIA Channels 1, 98, and 99. But, given the free-for-all channel assignment schemes floating around back then, about all we can say for certain is that Channel 1 was *not* the same as the long-defunct broadcast Channel 1. Neal McLain [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something I do not understand about our Cable One system is this: (Basic) channels are numbered 2 though 62 with no channel 0 or 1 and no channel 4, sixty channels total . There is a channel 3 on our cable which happens to be Fox out of Tulsa. Our converter boxes come with arrangements to use a switch on the back to set the converter to do its output on channel 3 or 4, depending. My thinking was since there is a channel 3, put the converter box output to channel 4 which is otherwise vacant. But no, Cable One says use the '3' side of the converter switch *even though they also put stuff on channel 3. In fact, if you put the converter box on 4 and also set the television set to '4', we only get a snowy, grainy picture. But go 3 and 3 as they suggest, the picture is fine whether you are watching the cable channel 3 or something else. I wonder why they would use 3 for the converter box output to the television even when they themselves are using channel 3? Their full spectrum of 'channels' runs from channel 2 through channel 938 if you have their full package (2 through 62, basic), (101 through 1xx, then 200 through 2xx, etc. up through 901 through 938 which are the music channels, in total about 400 channels total, with lots of vacancies in the middle.) But they do not use zero, or one, or four for some reason. Also, when manually tuning a cable channel where nothing is located, the cable does not allow the remote to be stopped on a vacant spot (even if requested) but automatically goes to the next highest actual channel, with one exception, channel 70, just above the basic group of channels. The coverter will stop on 70 if you request it to, and you get a continuous black screen, almost like a television station is there but with carrier but no other output. Ignoring the cable converter and manually tuning the television to channel 70 I usually just get snow and hiss, but sometimes I get a 'ghost image' of some cable channel instead. Can anyone explain any of this? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: VOIP and Telnet Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:16:41 GMT rshlain@hotmail.com wrote: > It is possible to have VOIP and be able to connect to machines that > have modems and use telnet? Yes, of course: it is a telephone. But WHY would you want to because VoIP requires that you already have broadband or equivalent. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe he wants to run a BBS which accepts calls over a modem line and he wants to know an a VOIP or Vonage phone be the call-in line for his BBS so that callers can use *thier* modems to call *his* modem and use the BBS? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dog4dogg@yahoo.com (kansasman) Subject: Re: VOIP and Telnet Date: 28 Oct 2004 09:45:56 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com rshlain@hotmail.com wrote in message news:: > It is possible to have VOIP and be able to connect to machines that > have modems and use telnet? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I understand it correctly, VOIP -- > or at least Vonage -- can do everything a telephone can do. PAT] In my experience, in order to have VoIP, you need to have DSL or Digital Cable with Broadband. I hope this is helpful! I was curious about this too -- and I found this site to be helpful in answering some of my basic questions: http://www.inclusive.com/trng/voip/facets.htm Good Luck! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe also the man has not only broad band and a fast local area network like myself (and most of you) but he also has (built in by default) 'Dial Up Networking' and he now and then uses that instead of the broadband, (as I do when I wish to call some small BBS type thing.) He wonders if *his modem* will work with his Vonage phone on his broadband line. PAT] ------------------------------ From: visniranjan@hotmail.com (Vish) Subject: Re: Inexepnsive Remote Forwarding by Auto Attendant Date: 28 Oct 2004 07:24:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Thanks, Fred, for your reply. Do I have to have a PC to run Asterisk? is there any other free standing device short of a PC running Linux that I can use? Thanks, Vish Fred wrote in message news:: > visniranjan@hotmail.com (Vish) wrote in news:telecom23.494.4@telecom- > digest.org: >> I want to buy an inexpensive auto attendant that will announce the >> name of our company and based on callers need (1 for John, 2 for >> Peter, 3 for David) transfer the call to a remote number (home, cell >> etc.) > It can easily be done by someone who knows how to set up an Asterisk > switch -- so it could run on a pc unattended; it runs under Linux, > which is pretty robust. > The other option is to find a service that does what you need. > Fred > VixFone.com We specialize in wholesale VoIP to ISPs, auto-attendants, > foreign exchange and switch services for business. ------------------------------ From: dog4dogg@yahoo.com (kansasman) Subject: Re: Home Phones Face Uncertain Future Date: 28 Oct 2004 09:29:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com charlie@cdsdetroit.com (charlie3) wrote in message news:: > I ported my home phone to Vonage last spring and haven't looked back. > It happens that cell phone coverage is excellent where I am so I use > the cell phone as the backup phone. I have Vonage set to > simultaneously ring the cell phone and ring the cell phone when the > network is out. With these features, Vonage plus cell phone are > reliable enough for my purposes. > Charlie Good to hear you are happy with VoIP. I have heard mixed reviews about Vonage, depending on the area. Are you east coast or west coast? I have also heard mixed reviews about their customer service. Thanks for the feedback. I am interested in finding out more. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe I am sort of a special customer of theirs, but I rarely have any hassles with their service. Occassionally their customer service sucks, but not often. But you know something? Even Bell, back in the days when it had only a couple hundred thousand customers (a hundred years ago?) gave excellent customer service. The extent to which a company begins getting very bad in its customer service is directly related to its size, and its customer base. Watch and see if Vonage, in forty or fifty years, hasn't gotten just as outrageous as the telcos are now. In the case of Vonage, regardless of your location, customer service is all given from an east coast office in New Jersey. Finding the proper ratio of customer base to quality service at a price that does not cause the company to lose its shirt in the process is a very complex thing. You want to have enough reps to take calls and stay active but not so few the customer waits on hold forever and gets wrong answers from a stressed out representative, and not so many reps that they can sit around wasting their time and your money. It gets very delicate. I may be a little bit prejudiced here: This past week, UPS rang my doorbell and handed me a package from Vonage -- which I had not ordered -- and in it was a t-shirt and a cap, each with the Vonage emblem, and a handwritten note saying 'a gift from us to you with our thanks for being one of our top referrers.' I called VONAGE-HELP on the phone then and there to say 'thanks' and promptly got put on hold for ten minutes before a rep answered who had no idea what I was talking about! PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Reply-To: FlyLikeAnEagle@United.Com Subject: Re: Yet Another Telco Tax Proposed Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:48:20 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I had my two heart attacks back > in the middle 1990's, I lived in the Chicago area and thought the > bills from Northshore Medical Center were pretty awful. There were > angioplasties each time and other treatment as well. But when I got > here to Kansas and had a brain aneurysm (which is more or less a > stroke but not entirely), when I got out of Stormont-Vail Medical > Center in Topeka and the associated Kansas Rehabiitation Hospital > (yes, the nearest brain surgeon was a 125 mile ambulance ride going > down I-70) I got a bill for *three hundred thousand dollars*. Ever > had a hospital or doctor bill with a bottom line of $300,000.00 ? > Not bad, I guess for someone who is comotose for over two months and > in emergency rehabilitation for another month after that. Add about > another $35,000 for a year's stay in a nursing home. How can anyone > afford to get sick these days? PAT] FWIW, you are still with us and able to share and participate. Surely that time is worth a good deal of the sum even if you didn't have to pay it all yourself. David [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I slowly pulled myself back together in the Kansas Rehabilition Hospital (for starters) and in the nursing home over the year following that, there were a few times I wondered why I was still around. As I began to acclimate myself to being at home finally, a disabled older person who has to have almost daily attention, those thoughts of 'why am I still around' occur now and then. Two years ago, I filed my tax return with the state of Kansas and claimed my (refund) due to 'Homestead Tax Exemption'. Kansas does not require old people to pay tax on their real property (my house and land) or any food sales tax (a standard amount is refunded for that if you are old and disabled.) You pay it as called for, then file for a refund of it all together each January and get it back as a refund check a few months later. Would you believe they tripped me up when the state auditor's office sent me a warrant due for ambulance service from the City of Junction City, KS for ambulance service the night of my aneurysm and that l-o-n-g (over a hundred miles) ride down I-70 from Junction City to Topeka where a brain surgeon was located. The auditor's office was merely a middle-man, collecting on outstanding warrants from various municipal governments. I told the JC people that Kansas SRS had paid the rest of the 300,000.00 bill and they should have paid Junction City for the ambulance service as well. The state auditor 'graciously' offset the warrant with my Homestead tax refund, but eventually the folks in Junction City backed down and okayed the release of the funds and I guess submitted their ambulance bill to Kansas SRS instead. Junction City has a 'relationship' with Fort Riley, where I was actually living and working to supply them with ambulance as needed and medical service from the Junction City Community Hospital. Between the Fort Riley army medics and the JC hospital, neither of them could come up with a brain surgeon (most small towns cannot), so it was off to Topeka with me in the back of the wagon, two Army MP's and a watchful nurse from the hospital looking after me. I joked on the way, asking the nurse if they were going to 'pronounce me' before they got to Topeka; she looked sort of aghast at that and said she hoped they would not have to. Naturally they all -- US Army, City of Junction City ambulance and the hospital nurse wanted to get paid for their efforts. The Army and the hospital all submitted their bills to Kansas SRS in a 'timely way' and got their money. For some reason, City of Junction City did not get their paper work in until almost two years later when I submitted the Homestead Tax refund form on my mother's house in Independence, then they decided they wanted their money also, when SRS said the bills left (at that point) had not been submitted in a 'timely fashion'. It finally all got resolved. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #518 ******************************